Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by A.1 and A.3 in S.C.No.43 of 2007, on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam. Through its judgment, dated 10.02.2009, the trial Court convicted A.1 to A.3 of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. Punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. The trial Court also imposed the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the present appeal, Crl.M.P.No.445 of 2011 was filed, with a prayer to declare A.3 as a juvenile. After hearing both parties, this Court passed an order, dated 28.02.2011, declaring A.3 as a juvenile. Accordingly, the benefit available to a juvenile was extended, and he is no more a convict, much less, he is serving the sentence. The appeal is now confined only to A.1. The record discloses that A.2 did not file an appeal. The case, presented by the prosecution, was that P.W.2, the wife of a Jawan in Border Security Force, was residing at Pathapatnam, in the house of the father of A.1, for the purpose of study of her minor son, Indra Kumar, aged about 5 years, in the year 2005. P.W.1, the brother of P.W.2, was also said to be residing at same place. The boy was admitted in St. Ann’s School at that place, and P.W.2 used to drop the boy at the school and pick up him after the school time. It is also stated that the boy was undergoing tuition with P.W.5, and as usual, on 24.10.2005, P.W.2 dropped the boy at 5.00 p.m. at the tuition institution. It is stated that the boy did not turn up by 7.00 p.m. as usual, and getting panicky about it, P.W.2 went to P.W.5 and enquired about the boy. On being informed that the boy had already left the tuition institution, P.W.2 is said to have informed her brother, P.W.1, about the missing of the boy. It is stated that the boy did not turn up by 7.00 p.m. as usual, and getting panicky about it, P.W.2 went to P.W.5 and enquired about the boy. On being informed that the boy had already left the tuition institution, P.W.2 is said to have informed her brother, P.W.1, about the missing of the boy. Both of them and other family members are said to have undertaken search of the boy. A.1 is also said to have joined P.Ws.1 and 2 in searching the boy. It was only at 6.00 a.m. on the next day, that P.W.3, the brother-in-law of P.W.2, is said to have seen the dead body of the boy, at a corner of the panchayat bungalow. P.W.1 submitted a complaint (Ex.P.1) before the P.S. Pathapatnam at 8.00 a.m., narrating the incident, and crime No.56 of 2005 was registered. He did not state the involvement of anyone, and obviously for that reason, Section 174 Cr.P.C. was mentioned therein. The police prepared scene of offence panchanama and conducted inquest, and caused post-mortem. Further investigation was taken up. The breakthrough in the case is said to have emerged with the information passed on by P.W.9, the Sarpanch of the village, to the effect that on 04.11.2005, when himself, Talayari, P.W.8, and one Mr. Panigrahi, L.W.18, went to the Grampanchayat office, A.1 to A.3 appeared before them and confessed to have committed the offence. P.W.9 is said to have forwarded the confessional statements recorded by him to the police station through P.W.8, and thereafter, the police is said to have come to the Grampanchayat office and caused the arrest of A.1 to A.3. On the basis of the further investigation conducted by the police, P.W.14 filed charge sheet. Taking the same into account, the trial Court framed charges. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.18. M.Os.1 to 10 were also taken on record. Sri H. Prahlada Reddy, learned counsel for the A.1, submits that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and hardly there exists any circumstantial evidence worth its name in the present case. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.18. M.Os.1 to 10 were also taken on record. Sri H. Prahlada Reddy, learned counsel for the A.1, submits that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and hardly there exists any circumstantial evidence worth its name in the present case. He contends that P.W.2 or any of her family members did not even suspect the involvement of A.1, and the very fact that A.1 also was with P.Ws.1 and 2 in the course of search of the missing boy, discloses that the version presented by the prosecution is totally false. He submits that there is hardly any consistency between the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9, as regards the manner in which A.1 to A.3 are said to have appeared before P.W.9 or their arrest of the accused, by the police. He submits that at one stage, P.W.9 stated that he sent the accused to the police station along with P.W.8, but a totally different version was presented by that very witness, at a later point of time. Learned counsel submits that though P.W.8 was declared hostile, he stated that the so-called confessional statements (Exs.P.3 to P.5) were prepared in the Grampanchayat office at a time, when the police was present. He further submits that hardly any motive was suggested to the accused nor any effort was made to prove it. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the confessional statements made before an independent person and not before the police official, can certainly be taken into account, and in the instant case, there are other circumstances to support the confession. She contends that the chain of events furnished by the prosecution provides a complete link between the accused and the incident of killing of the deceased. The minor son of P.W.2 was left in the tuition institution nearby her residence at 5.00 p.m. as usual. According to the prosecution, the boy used to return to his house by 7.00 p.m. When the boy did not return, naturally, P.W.2 became anxious and proceeded to P.W.5, who runs the tuition institution. On being informed that the boy had already left the institution, P.W.2 passed on the information to her brother, P.W.1, and both of them started search. Even from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that A.1 also joined them in searching the boy. On being informed that the boy had already left the institution, P.W.2 passed on the information to her brother, P.W.1, and both of them started search. Even from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that A.1 also joined them in searching the boy. No information was received on that day. It was only at 6.00 a.m. on the next day, that P.W.3, the uncle of the boy, noticed the dead body near the panchayat bungalow. Ex.P.1-the complaint in this behalf was submitted by P.W.1 at 8.00 a.m., and he did not suspect the involvement of anyone, much less, the accused herein. The entire case of the prosecution took a turn with the information said to have been furnished to them by P.W.9, the Sarpanch of the village. According to P.W.9, he proceeded to the Grampanchayat office in the morning along with P.W.8 and one Mr. Panigrahi (L.W.18). All the three accused are said to have appeared before them and confessed the commission of offence of kidnapping the boy and killing him by closing his mouth with hands. In his chief-examination also, P.W.9 did not state about the motive, that prompted the accused to kidnap the boy. The only statement made by him is that the accused kidnapped the boy, and on noticing that P.Ws.1 and 2 and other relatives are searching for the boy, they pressed the mouth of the boy and that resulted in death. He did not mention as to where the dead body was preserved for the rest of the night and when it was put at the place where it was found. In case P.W.9 had received information about the commission of offence, either on account of any voluntary disclosure or otherwise, he was duty bound to inform the police. However, he claims to have recorded the confessional statements, as though he is an Officer of the police, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He is said to have sent the confessional statements to the police station through P.W.8. It needs to be noted that the Grampanchayat office and the police station are in the same village, and even on a phone call, the police would have come and taken necessary measures. There is serious discrepancy between the version presented by P.W.8 on the one hand, and P.W.9, on the other hand. It needs to be noted that the Grampanchayat office and the police station are in the same village, and even on a phone call, the police would have come and taken necessary measures. There is serious discrepancy between the version presented by P.W.8 on the one hand, and P.W.9, on the other hand. According to P.W.8, he was given a file, containing a bunch of papers, for handing over the same to the police, and when he did so, the police came to the Grampanchayat office and recorded the statements of the accused. This is at variance with the following statement of P.W.9: “It is true, as per 164 Cr.P.C. statement, I called police and sent A.1 to A.3 to the police station along with P.W.8 Talari.” He made a reference to a statement made before the Magistrate. However, that was not mentioned by the prosecution. P.W.8 was declared hostile by the Court, at the instance of the prosecution. However, nothing substantial was elicited from him in the cross-examination. There is a serious lapse in the entire prosecution case. P.W.9 is said to have proceeded to the Grampanchayat office along with P.W.8 and L.W.18. It has already been mentioned that P.W.8 was declared hostile, and there were serious discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.9. Non-examination of L.W.18, an independent person, is certainly fatal. Inference, as provided for under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, deserves to be drawn. In our anxiety to know as to whether there existed any acceptable evidence in the heinous crime that led to the death of a boy of tender age, we have gone through the entire record. However, we did not come across any independent evidence. Added to that, there was not even an indication as to the motive that could have prompted the accused to kidnap the boy or to kill him. Throughout the record, there was not even a mention about the demand of money or any thinking process, in that direction. A.1 is none other than the son of the landlord of P.W.2. No acts of disharmony or animosity, on the previous occasion, were suggested to him. If one takes into account the statements said to have been made before P.W.9 and compare the same with the other part of the prosecution version, a total inconsistency becomes visible. A.1 is none other than the son of the landlord of P.W.2. No acts of disharmony or animosity, on the previous occasion, were suggested to him. If one takes into account the statements said to have been made before P.W.9 and compare the same with the other part of the prosecution version, a total inconsistency becomes visible. P.W.9 stated that A.1 to A.3 kidnapped the boy and when they were holding the boy, they found P.W.1 and others searching for the boy, and to ensure that the boy does not raise any cries, the accused closed the mouth of the boy and that resulted in death of the boy. P.Ws.1 and 2, on the other hand, stated that A.1 was very much with them, when the search for the boy was taking place. It is difficult to reconcile these two versions, which, in turn, are presented by the prosecution itself. We are, therefore, left with no alternative, except to acquit A.1. It is true that A.2 did not file an appeal, obviously because he did not have the financial resources or was not aware of the facility of legal aid. The allegations against all the accused and the evidence, are common. There are no differentiating factors for them. We find that the same result must ensue in respect of A.2 also. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence ordered against the appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2, Vanjarapu Laxmanarao, in S.C.No.43 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court, Srikakulam, through judgment dated 10.02.2009, are set aside. Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed with reference to any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be refunded to them.